Answer:
A president with a conservative agenda wants to limit taxpayer money spent on housing subsidies for the poor, while a liberal Congress wants to expand the housing subsidies to more citizens.
Explanation:
Today, the American political agenda is evenly divided into two political sectors with almost equal representation: the conservatives, voters of the Republican Party; and the Liberals, voters of the Democratic Party.
Both political groups, while sharing many of the political theories that form the ideological foundation on which the United States of America was founded, have wide differences regarding the role of government with respect to social rights and tax issues: thus, Conservatives consider that governments do not have the right to charge high taxes, but only those necessary to guarantee the safety of citizens and the proper functioning of the government, while the rights of each individual must be fulfilled through individual work and effort; while liberals believe that the government must guarantee rights to its citizens in relation to health, education and security, and that to finance these policies the taxes that are charged to individuals must be increased.
Hey there!
My idea behind this is that fear can lead to someone being in an upper-hand position against someone, leading to them being more "powerful" than that person. Sometimes, people can take advantage of others to show their dominance. Others will lead their countries by making their population fear consequences if they don't follow their commands.
Power and fear can be used for good, especially in the case of being president of a country or something similar. For example, one could use their powerful position and can make citizens of their country fearful of the consequences of having bad health and not getting exercise. This might motivate the citizens in bad health to start changing their diet and exercising. However, power and fear can also be used for evil in this case. One could overpower the word of their citizens and establish that, if they don't follow orders or try to question their authority, there will be consequences.
So, a good thesis behind this could be:
"Fear can give someone varying dominance over others; it is up to the person in power to then use it for good to encourage positive change in those they lead or for evil by bullying and creating a hostile, one-sided relationship between them and who they control."
Hope this helped you out! :-)
The correct answer is B) He is not likely to be categorized as having an anti-social personality disorder.
Under DSM-5, the statement that is most likely true is "He is not likely to be categorized as having an anti-social personality disorder."
The DSM-5 is the Diagnosis and Staticals Manual of mental Disorders. It is the most important reference for mental health practitioners in America and has been a good reference for the health industry in other countries.
An anti-social personality disorder is known to be a kind of disorder where the individual does not respect or violate the rights of other persons, no matter what of why. It likes to step over the rights of others without thinking about the consequences, and that is what Anders does.
Answer:
Outcome-based education (OBE) is an educational theory that bases each part of an educational system around goals (outcomes). By the end of the educational experience, each student should have achieved the goal.